AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These Revenue’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 3236/Del/2016 & 1952/Del/2017, for assessment years 2010-11 & 2014-15, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23 [in short, “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s orders dated 23.03.2016 & 30.01.2017, passed in Order No. 70/12-13 & 217/16-17, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.
Case(s) called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Learned CIT(DR) Ms. Monika Singh invites our attention to the Revenue’s following substantive grounds pleaded in his instant “lead” appeal ITA No. 3236/Del/2016 for assessment year 2010-11:
“1.The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and on facts.
2.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 43,64,537/- made by AO on account of Non-deduction of TDS on payments made to SITA (Belgium).
3.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 2,42,98,563/- made by AO on account of Non-deduction of TDS on in payments on room rent paid/payable to hotels.
4.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 51,36,583/- made by AO on account of understatement of due to expenses on SOD tickets.
5.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 39,76,10,952/- made by AO on account of prepaid expenses on unmatured air tickets.
6.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 28,54,08,996/-made by AO on account of discount on sales.
7.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 2,26,07,864/- made by AO on account of Non-deduction of TDS on Aircraft Maintenance charges paid to M/s KLM Engineering and Maintenance.
8.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 71,09,911/- made by AO on account of provision made for redelivery of aircrafts.
9.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 5,10,09,162/- made by AO on account of disallowance of provision made for stock/inventory obsolescence.
10.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting 2,30,710/-made by AO on account of provision made for On the facts and circumstances the addition of travel expenses.
11.On the facts and the addition of circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in 58,06,762/- made by AO on account of disallowance of provision made for service tax on license fees.
12.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 60,46,005/- made by AO on account of disallowance of depreciation claimed on missing assets.
13.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 7,74,83,140/- made by AO on account disallowance of remission of liability.
14.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 2,82,69,960/- made by AO on account of disallowance of disallowance of Non/short deduction on TDS on commission paid to agent.
15.On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,31,810/- made by AO on account of disallowance of short deduction of TDS on cargo Handling Charges.
16.16. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 3,90,73,706/- made by AO on account of disallowance of provision for Bad Advances Written Back.
17.The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. ”
The Revenue’s case accordingly is that we ought to reverse the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion reversing/partly restricting the assessments findings herein making various disallowance/additions; as the case may be, in the assessee’s hands.
It is in this factual backdrop that we come to the Revenue’s instant first and foremost ground seeking to disallow the assessee’s payments made to “SITA (Belgium)” amounting to Rs. 43,64,537/- on account of non-deduction of TDS thereupon. The CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion in para 3.2.2 at page 10 appears to have treated the same as a covered issue right from A.Y. 2009-10 onwards having already decided the same in the assessee’s favour which has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. Rejected in very terms therefore.
Next comes the second substantive issue between the parties regarding the TDS compliance on the assessee’s payments of room rent paid/payable to various hotels to serve its crew’s layover in airlines business activities. The CIT(A) detailed discussion at page 17 makes is clear that this issue is also very much a recurring one since decided against the department in the preceding assessment years. Rejected accordingly.
The Revenue’s third substantive ground raises the issue of disallowance of Rs. 51,36,583/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of under statement of income due to expenses on “SOD” tickets. We note from a perusal of the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion at page 20 that he has already followed the tribunal’s order in the assessee’s favour in the preceding assessment years. Rejected accordingly.
The Revenue’s fourth substantive ground is that we ought to retore the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing the assessee’s claim of Rs. 39,76,10,952/- on account of prepaid expenses on unmatured air tickets. The learned CIT(A) holds at page no. 23 that the assessee has already succeeded on the very issue right from A.Y. 2005-06 onwards. Rejected accordingly.
The Revenue’s fifth substantive ground seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s assessment findings disallowing the assessee’s discount sales amounting to Rs. 28,54,08,996/- thereby treating it as commission expenditure. Learned CIT(DR) could hardly dispute that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion at page no. 27 treats it as a covered/recurring issue between the parties already decided against the department’s right from A.Y. 2005-06 onwards. Rejected accordingly.
The Revenue’s sixth substantive ground raised herein pleads that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reversing the assessment findings disallowing the assessee’s aircraft maintenance charges paid to M/s KLM Engineering and Maintenance amounting to Rs. 2,26,07,864/- in the lower appellate discussion. Learned CIT(A) already appears to have held that the aforesaid payee does not have any Permanent Establishment “PE” in India in the earlier assessment years as well stated to have attained finality. Rejected accordingly.
The Revenue’s seventh substantive ground herein pleads that the Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed the assessee’s provision made for redelivery of aircrafts amounting to Rs. 71,09,911/- thereby treating it as a mere contingent liability which has been wrongly deleted in the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion. We make it clear that what all the learned CIT(A) has done is to rely on this tribunal’s order in assessee’s holding in M/s Jet Airways case vide order dated 30.05.2006 that such a liability is indeed an ascertained one thereby attracting the impugned provision. Rejected accordingly.
The Revenue’s eighth substantive ground herein seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s assessment findings in disallowing the assessee’s provision made for stock/ inventory obsolescence amounting to Rs. 5,10,09,162/- which has been wrongly deleted in this CIT(A)’ s detailed discussion. We note from the learned CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate finding at page 60 that he has duly taken note of his findings in the preceding assessment year 2009-10 holding that same as an ascertained liability only. Rejected accordingly.
The Revenue’s ninth substantive ground herein seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s assessment findings disallowing the assessee’s provision made for foreign travel expenses amounting to Rs. 2,30,710/- as deleted in the lower appellate discussion. We notice that the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion at page 64 adopts judicial consistency after taking note of his findings in assessment years A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09 that the same pertains to the awaited bills for the employees’ foreign travel expenses. Rejected accordingly.
The Revenue’s tenth substantive ground is that the Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed the assessee’s provision made for service tax on license fee amounting to Rs. 58,06,762/-which has been wrongly deleted in the learned CIT(A) lower appellate discussion. Learned CIT(A) impugned findings read at page 71 hold that not only the instant issue is covered in the assessee’s favour in the preceding assessment year 2009-10 but also there arose a dispute with M/s Airport Authority of India leading it to make the impugned provision which is not hit by section 43B of the Act. Upheld accordingly.
Next comes the Revenue’s eleventh substantive ground seeking to revive the assessee’s depreciation disallowance claim of Rs. 60,46,005/- relating to its missing assets which is found to be covered in the preceding assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10; as the case may be, as per page 78 of the lower appellate discussion. Rejected accordingly.
Learned CIT(DR) reiterates the Revenue’s twelfth substantive ground seeking to revive section 41(1) remission of liability addition amounting to Rs. 7,74,83,140/- wrongly deleted in the CIT(A) detailed discussion. She could hardly dispute that there has been no actual remission as pin pointed in the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion. Upheld accordingly.
The Revenue’s thirteenth substantive ground herein is that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the assessee’s disallowance of non/short deduction of TDS on commission paid to agents amounting to Rs. 2,82,69,960/-forming a subject matter of tribunal’s apt adjudication. The CIT(A) holds at page 88 in the lower appellate discussion that the assessee had already succeeded on the very issue in assessment year 2007-08 and thereafter. Rejected accordingly.
The Revenue’s fourteenth ground avers that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting cargo handling charges disallowance of Rs. 37,31,810/- made in the Assessing Officer’s assessment order on account of non-deduction of TDS. This issue is already stated to be covered based on the learned CIT(A)’s preceding assessment year 2009-10 findings against the department. Rejected accordingly.
Lastly comes the Revenue’s fifteenth substantive ground seeking to revive the assessee’s bad debt write back provision disallowance made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs. 3,90,73,706/- and deleted in the lower appellate discussion. Our attention is invited to page no. 95 para 3.18.2 that the assessee has succeeded only qua apportion thereof i.e. VAT reclaimed of Rs. 1,47,43,570/- as well as Rs. 44,30,136/- relating to write off of the interest amount on accrual basis; respectively. We quote TRF Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC) to uphold the assessee’s impugned write off in very terms.
No other ground or argument has been pressed before us. This Revenue’s lead appeal ITA No. 3236/Del/2016 fails therefore.
Same order to follow in the Revenue’s latter appeal ITA No. 1952/Del/2017 since raising an identical seven issues of disallowance of prepaid expenses on unmatured tickets, discount on sales, provision made for redelivery of aircrafts, provision for stock/inventory obsolescence, depreciation on missing assets, cargo handling charges and remission of liability; involving varying sums, respectively, in absence of any distinction pointed out on facts or in law; as the case may be.
These Revenue’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 3236/Del/2016 & 1952/Del/2017 are dismissed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.